Doug Ledford wrote:
No. This is a failure of you to practice good sense with the current tools. You are aware that the current tools don't reflect the state of the upstream development since they are coming out of tarballs. So why do you expect what we have in our downstream repository to reflect what is going on upstream?On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 10:19 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:There's absolutely nothing blocking you from sitting down with a checkout of current codeI did that. And then this huge update comes out of the blue (to me anyway) due to the total disconnect between upstream SCM management and our management. Not that I was complaining about the update in my previous mails, I was complaining about the statement that since it needs stabilized that it can't even tolerate some new headers (that being all I asked for). But I do find it to be a fitting example of why our SCM practices are in need of updating.
Well, We could always just say no without discussion if that makes you happier:-)and starting to make your changes so that you can submit some code against the updated branch to the rpm maintainers when the current release is out the door. No, it will not get into F10 but I highly doubt that Fedora Policy to allow using source control repos interchangably with tarballs would be approved in time for F10 either.Good God, how long does it take you guys to make a policy decision? Should I submit a proposal and plan to argue it until F12 or some such crap?
Seriously, making use of this kind of functionality is a huge change in the expectations we have for what a source package is. Seeing as jcollie and I weren't able to sell people on making our SCM hold exploded trees of the source from tarballs, I think that having rpms that are created from SCM checkouts without the tarball intermediary are likely to meet with a lot of resistance.
Description: OpenPGP digital signature